Letter to the Editor: Iowa Supreme Court has done it again

In Gartner v. Iowa Department of Public Health, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the presumption of parentage law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against the non-birthing spouse in a lesbian marriage. The court should have stopped there.

But in the remedy section, the court ordered the Department of Public Health to add the non-birthing lesbian's name to the birth certificate. Once again (as in the Varnum case), the court legislated from the bench.

It has authority to determine that a law is unconstitutional. But it has no power to declare what the new law must be and order Iowans to follow it. Some will argue that there is ample precedent for this court action. Yes, there is. But it is based on a long line of decisions that violate the separation of powers principle of our Constitution.

Roe v. Wade (1973) is an example. In 1985, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote that the case was "heavy-handed judicial intervention" and "difficult to justify".

In Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion rules (the trimester system) that all states must follow. Only legislatures and Congress have constitutional authority to make such laws and rules.

The highest form of social justice is strict adherence to the rule of law. But it has been eroded and transformed into rule by the courts.

When rule of law is distorted to provide only those outcomes deemed "just" by intellectuals, we all suffer in the long run. This "means justifies the end" philosophy may look good now. But the future of our nation is uncertain when ultimate political power is beyond the reach of the people.

- John Hesling, Clive

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Letter to the Editor: Iowa Supreme Court has done it again

In Gartner v. Iowa Department of Public Health, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the presumption of parentage law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against the non-birthing spouse in a